Mutations?

[TrilbyUK]

Well, we have oppossable thumbs, An upright gait allowing us to grasp things with our hands, and the brains necessary to create tools. Do those count?

Those are not mutations. The same way speech isn't a mutation.

...and so this mutation then became the dominant gene and the non-mutated gene eventually died out...

Slight confusion of terms here. Dominant does not refer to the percentage of carriers of a gene within a population. For instance, the gene for Huntington's disease is dominant, yet Huntington's sufferers are a very small minority. When a child is conceived, they receive exactly half of each of their two parents' DNA, and therefore genes. For every genetic characteristic, you have a gene from both parents. If the gene received from one parent is different to the other, only one will manifest itself in the nature of the child's physiology. The gene whose effect is seen is said to be the dominant gene. The gene whose effect is masked by the dominant gene is said to be recessive. For example, take eye colour: The gene for brown eyes is dominant and the gene for blue eyes is recessive. For this reason, someone with brown eyes can have the genetic make-up of [BB], [Bb] or [bB]. Someone with blue eyes however, can only have [bb] because a gene would supersede a gene. If a couple with the combinations [BB] & [bb] had a child, that child and all of their siblings would have brown eyes and the combination [Bb]. If a couple both with [Bb] had children, the combinations could be [BB] = Brown eyes, [Bb] = Brown eyes, [Bb] (again) = Brown eyes or [bb] = Blue eyes. Hence, even if half of all the eye colour genes were , there would still be less than half of the population with blue eyes -- in fact in would be about a quarter. This is basically how genetics works, with genes with any number of variations, there is a hierarchy of dominance. A notable exception to the rule is skin tone where a child typically has a pigmentation level somewhere between their two parents.

Fhew... That was long winded, I'm going to bed now. http://xkcd.com/386/

 

[sheic99]

I should have specified. HUMAN mutation.

Sickle cell is human evolution. It gives a natural resistance to malaria, ergo beneficial.

Firstly, if Sickle Cell is evolution, how come all of our species hasn't gotten it? Or would Sickle Cell humans be different? Secondly, does this mean I can classify Sickle cell people as a different type of human? Like say "Homo Molocktovto (Rough Greek Translation)", or "Homo Nosson"?

OT: I think Good Genetic Evolution would be us having Bigger Brains, Stronger Bodies, Bigger Hands, Opposable Toes, or better eyes.

I never said it was evolution, just a mutation. Secondly, we gave up opposable toes to be able to walk upright and better vision to see in color.

I hate to say it but you're making yourself look ridiculous, you've just quoted yourself saying that SCA is "evolution". Dear oh dear.

/facepalm

I didn't realize I typed that. I will be editing that now.

 

[dogenzakaminion]

Well, we have oppossable thumbs, An upright gait allowing us to grasp things with our hands, and the brains necessary to create tools. Do those count?

Those are not mutations. The same way speech isn't a mutation.

At some point, all those things were mutations, but they survived and led to evolution.

It feels like you're trying to find some sort of X-men like mutation how one person randomly is born with the ability to shoot lasers from their face, which will not happen in one mutation.

 

[steve141761]

Before I get into this, are we helping a kid with Science homework, or doing some kind of "evolution is a lie and your going to hell" variant?

 

[kikon9]

Are you all biology majors or something..it might just be that i'm in grade 10 but much of this i have never even heard before...

I'm only in tenth grade too, I just read a lot.

 

[Dags90]

Are you all biology majors or something..it might just be that i'm in grade 10 but much of this i have never even heard before...

I'm a Biotech major and a pretty much all of the posts in this thread have shortcomings I can see. Genetics can be annoying to explain to people because there are so many different way genes interact, and don't even get me started on the different polymerases, recruitment, etc. It's hard to really say "this is how it is" without either covering a large amount of material or...not covering a large amount of material.

 

[chaos order]

well one of our key mutations that "allowed" for our large brains is the reduction of our sagital crest. simply put it allowed more brain to fit in the ol can if yall know what i mean. unfortunately it made our jaw really weak comaparable to apes of comparable size

 

[TrilbyUK]

Nothing I've seen or read has lead me to believe that mutations are beneficial to evolution.

The first four results in google using "examples of beneficial mutations" yields these:

http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoMutations.html
examples of beneficial mutations
http://www.buzzle.com/articles/beneficial-mutation.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/mutations.html

There are more, but you get the idea. A search using just the word "mutation" yields similar results, and I imagine any other similarly-worded search would give you the same. Quite frankly if you haven't been able to find examples of beneficial mutations, then you haven't tried very hard.

Great Jay-Z. Topic Discussion: "Q: What's a beneficial HUMAN mutation? More importantly, where can I find one?"

What language are you speaking? He gave you links. What the fuck do you want from us?

Ahem. What I mean is, elaborate. How do you define evolution and mutation, because there appears to be some sort of basic communication breakdown here.

Mr.Mattress:


daemon37:


Mr.Mattress:
Firstly, if Sickle Cell is evolution, how come all of our species hasn't gotten it?

There are so many things wrong with this statement. I could try to write them all out but I'm really not interested in writing a book at the moment.

Mr.Mattress:

Or would Sickle Cell humans be different? Secondly, does this mean I can classify Sickle cell people as a different type of human? Like say "Homo Molocktovto (Rough Greek Translation)", or "Homo Nosson"?

Yes, if one group of humans evolves in a different direction from another, then you could consider them to be a different kind of creature. Unfortunately, this is the kind of argument that Hitler made about Jewish people.

Exactly, I know saying things like that are wrong. I was simply pointing it out that saying Sickle Cell is a Mutation, Positive or Negative isn't really a good thing. While Sickle Cell is a Mutation, we should treat it (Not the people who have it) as an Anemia or a disease, something we should strive to cure.

Why? Sickle cell originated in Africa, because it helped counteract malaria, a disease Africa is still fucking lousy with. Sickle cell can lead to other problems, blood clots I believe, but that can be treated outside of Africa. In the places it came from, sickle cell is still effective and useful.

That's the logical answer, but your mentality is also all wrong. Are you saying we need to eradicate Sickle Cell simply because it's a mutation? That makes no fucking sense. Mutation is an ugly word with a bad reputation, but mutations run the gamut from deadly to life-saving. As I stated above, Sickle Cell is probably still saving lives, so just because it's a mutation doesn't mean that we need to get rid of it.

Well I dunno, maybe because blood clotting is painful and maybe because it causes seizures, leg ulcers, Spontaneous Abortions, Priapism, Renel Failures and other troublesome things? I am not saying "Remove it because it's simply a Mutation", I am saying "Remove it because it causes major and deadly problems that outweigh anything good it does."

Blood clots are painful, but sickle cell is still definitely worth it. It stops a major disease even though it has a chance of causing pain and maybe death. Malaria is by far a bigger problem than blood clots.

Also, sickle cell is really only a problem in cold environments. It [the gene] survives in Africa because Africa is quite warm. Interestingly, there is a slight break from the normal rules of genetic inheritance here insofar as someone with one sickle cell gene and one "ordinary" gene has malaria resistance but no sickle cell disease.

 

[chaos order]

I should have specified. HUMAN mutation.

Sickle cell is human evolution. It gives a natural resistance to malaria, ergo beneficial.

That's a wide-believed myth.

The problems with this are obvious, as the sickle cell mutation, like the many other described hemoglobin mutations, clearly impairs the function of the otherwise marvelously well-designed hemoglobin molecule. It can in no way be regarded as an improvement in our species, even though its preservation is enhanced in malaria-endemic parts of central Africa by natural selection.

actually the sickle cell is "somewhaT GOOD" the sickle cell mutation is a perfect example of heterozygotic advantage. simply put if a person is hetero-zygotic for sickle cell then his hemoglobin isnt that great for the malaria parasite, he.she can still get infected but the symptoms r watered down alot. however a homo zygote for sickle cell is essentially immune to malaria but... ya u alredy know having both alleles is detrimental on its own.

 

[gostchiken]

I know a guy that was born without wisdom teeth, so I suppose that could be a beneficial mutation.

 

[Canid117]

Q: What's a beneficial HUMAN mutation? More importantly, where can I find one?

.

A mutation that leads to a lighter skin tone can be highly beneficial in an area such as say Ireland where it is best to absorb as much sunlight as possible. This would have happened a long time ago but it is beneficial.

also this kid
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9807E0DD1E39F937A15755C0A9629C8B63

 

[Wyes]

I just explained how evolution works using only natural selection. It just takes longer than mutation. Let me tell you an example step by step: Lets say there is a group of lion-like cats in a relatively warm environment. If the climate gets colder, the ones with the thickest fur will survive, causing the creatures thereon to have progressively thicker fur. At the same time, the ones with the lightest fur will blend with the snow better and hunt better because of it. So they get thicker, whiter fur. Then, the ones with the largest fangs get the most kills as well, modifying the gene pool even more. So the current collective gene pool will optimize now for: thicker fur, whiter fur, and bigger canines. More and more changes over time cause further and further differentiation from the original warm weather cat. Until, a million years later, the ancestors look completely different from their ancestors. Their DNA will be different and their physical build will be different. Evolution can occur without mutations.

And don't say "only humans" because why would only the absence of beneficial human mutations prove evolution wrong, when mutations are not the only driving force, and mutations (like the previously mentioned hammerhead) have happened in other species.

I'm sorry but, I have to comment on this. By what mechanism do you think those changes occur? To use your thicker fur example, there aren't lions with thicker fur just because, there are lions with thicker fur because some mutation along the way caused them to have thicker fur (the mutation didn't necessarily 'begin' with this lion, it could've been inherited from a previous generation).

Without mutation, there are no changes. Without natural selection, no changes are selected for. A nice analogy I once heard (though it's likely very simplistic) is that if evolution is a car, natural selection is the engine, and mutations are the fuel. Without one of those, evolution doesn't work/occur.

Just going to put a little disclaimer here that I've not 'formally' studied evolution since I was about 15-16, and I'm also fairly certain this is a very simplified view/model, but from what I know it gets across all the fundamentals.

 

[aDuck]

I just explained how evolution works using only natural selection. It just takes longer than mutation. Let me tell you an example step by step: Lets say there is a group of lion-like cats in a relatively warm environment. If the climate gets colder, the ones with the thickest fur will survive, causing the creatures thereon to have progressively thicker fur. At the same time, the ones with the lightest fur will blend with the snow better and hunt better because of it. So they get thicker, whiter fur. Then, the ones with the largest fangs get the most kills as well, modifying the gene pool even more. So the current collective gene pool will optimize now for: thicker fur, whiter fur, and bigger canines. More and more changes over time cause further and further differentiation from the original warm weather cat. Until, a million years later, the ancestors look completely different from their ancestors. Their DNA will be different and their physical build will be different. Evolution can occur without mutations.

And don't say "only humans" because why would only the absence of beneficial human mutations prove evolution wrong, when mutations are not the only driving force, and mutations (like the previously mentioned hammerhead) have happened in other species.

I'm sorry but, I have to comment on this. By what mechanism do you think those changes occur? To use your thicker fur example, there aren't lions with thicker fur just because, there are lions with thicker fur because some mutation along the way caused them to have thicker fur (the mutation didn't necessarily 'begin' with this lion, it could've been inherited from a previous generation).

Without mutation, there are no changes. Without natural selection, no changes are selected for. A nice analogy I once heard (though it's likely very simplistic) is that if evolution is a car, natural selection is the engine, and mutations are the fuel. Without one of those, evolution doesn't work/occur.

Just going to put a little disclaimer here that I've not 'formally' studied evolution since I was about 15-16, and I'm also fairly certain this is a very simplified view/model, but from what I know it gets across all the fundamentals.

^This.

I think your talking about another theory (lets call it "Theory X", kikon9. Dunno what its called, but ill use an example:

(hypothetically) In the beginning, giraffes had short necks, meaning they couldnt reach the tops of trees.
Evolution states that the giraffes that were mutated to have longer necks could eat the leaves, and therefore survive, while the shorter neck giraffes died.
Theory X says that every generation of giraffes aclimatised to their surroundings more and more to survive (i.e every generation of giraffe grew longer and longer necks in order to survive).
Theory X has been debunked, while Evolution has not yet been debunked. Like Wyes said, mutation is the fuel for evolution. Without it, there is no change, and we would not exist.

P.S if anyone knows the name of Theroy X, it would be very helpful

 

[joshuaayt]

I just explained how evolution works using only natural selection. It just takes longer than mutation. Let me tell you an example step by step: Lets say there is a group of lion-like cats in a relatively warm environment. If the climate gets colder, the ones with the thickest fur will survive, causing the creatures thereon to have progressively thicker fur. At the same time, the ones with the lightest fur will blend with the snow better and hunt better because of it. So they get thicker, whiter fur. Then, the ones with the largest fangs get the most kills as well, modifying the gene pool even more. So the current collective gene pool will optimize now for: thicker fur, whiter fur, and bigger canines. More and more changes over time cause further and further differentiation from the original warm weather cat. Until, a million years later, the ancestors look completely different from their ancestors. Their DNA will be different and their physical build will be different. Evolution can occur without mutations.

And don't say "only humans" because why would only the absence of beneficial human mutations prove evolution wrong, when mutations are not the only driving force, and mutations (like the previously mentioned hammerhead) have happened in other species.

I'm sorry but, I have to comment on this. By what mechanism do you think those changes occur? To use your thicker fur example, there aren't lions with thicker fur just because, there are lions with thicker fur because some mutation along the way caused them to have thicker fur (the mutation didn't necessarily 'begin' with this lion, it could've been inherited from a previous generation).

Without mutation, there are no changes. Without natural selection, no changes are selected for. A nice analogy I once heard (though it's likely very simplistic) is that if evolution is a car, natural selection is the engine, and mutations are the fuel. Without one of those, evolution doesn't work/occur.

Just going to put a little disclaimer here that I've not 'formally' studied evolution since I was about 15-16, and I'm also fairly certain this is a very simplified view/model, but from what I know it gets across all the fundamentals.

^This.

I think your talking about another theory (lets call it "Theory X", kikon9. Dunno what its called, but ill use an example:

(hypothetically) In the beginning, giraffes had short necks, meaning they couldnt reach the tops of trees.
Evolution states that the giraffes that were mutated to have longer necks could eat the leaves, and therefore survive, while the shorter neck giraffes died.
Theory X says that every generation of giraffes aclimatised to their surroundings more and more to survive (i.e every generation of giraffe grew longer and longer necks in order to survive).
Theory X has been debunked, while Evolution has not yet been debunked. Like Wyes said, mutation is the fuel for evolution. Without it, there is no change, and we would not exist.

P.S if anyone knows the name of Theroy X, it would be very helpful

Soft inheritance? Or, Lamarckism. Jean-Baptiste Lamarck said that the giraffes 'stretched' their necks during their lifetime, leading to offspring with longer necks.
I think that's the one you are referring to, could be wrong.

 

[Luftwaffles]

Nothing I've seen or read has lead me to believe that mutations are beneficial to evolution.

The first four results in google using "examples of beneficial mutations" yields these:

http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoMutations.html
examples of beneficial mutations
http://www.buzzle.com/articles/beneficial-mutation.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/mutations.html

There are more, but you get the idea. A search using just the word "mutation" yields similar results, and I imagine any other similarly-worded search would give you the same. Quite frankly if you haven't been able to find examples of beneficial mutations, then you haven't tried very hard.

Great Jay-Z. Topic Discussion: "Q: What's a beneficial HUMAN mutation? More importantly, where can I find one?"

What language are you speaking? He gave you links. What the fuck do you want from us?

Ahem. What I mean is, elaborate. How do you define evolution and mutation, because there appears to be some sort of basic communication breakdown here.

Mr.Mattress:


daemon37:


Mr.Mattress:
Firstly, if Sickle Cell is evolution, how come all of our species hasn't gotten it?

There are so many things wrong with this statement. I could try to write them all out but I'm really not interested in writing a book at the moment.

Mr.Mattress:

Or would Sickle Cell humans be different? Secondly, does this mean I can classify Sickle cell people as a different type of human? Like say "Homo Molocktovto (Rough Greek Translation)", or "Homo Nosson"?

Yes, if one group of humans evolves in a different direction from another, then you could consider them to be a different kind of creature. Unfortunately, this is the kind of argument that Hitler made about Jewish people.

Exactly, I know saying things like that are wrong. I was simply pointing it out that saying Sickle Cell is a Mutation, Positive or Negative isn't really a good thing. While Sickle Cell is a Mutation, we should treat it (Not the people who have it) as an Anemia or a disease, something we should strive to cure.

Why? Sickle cell originated in Africa, because it helped counteract malaria, a disease Africa is still fucking lousy with. Sickle cell can lead to other problems, blood clots I believe, but that can be treated outside of Africa. In the places it came from, sickle cell is still effective and useful.

That's the logical answer, but your mentality is also all wrong. Are you saying we need to eradicate Sickle Cell simply because it's a mutation? That makes no fucking sense. Mutation is an ugly word with a bad reputation, but mutations run the gamut from deadly to life-saving. As I stated above, Sickle Cell is probably still saving lives, so just because it's a mutation doesn't mean that we need to get rid of it.

Well I dunno, maybe because blood clotting is painful and maybe because it causes seizures, leg ulcers, Spontaneous Abortions, Priapism, Renel Failures and other troublesome things? I am not saying "Remove it because it's simply a Mutation", I am saying "Remove it because it causes major and deadly problems that outweigh anything good it does."

Blood clots are painful, but sickle cell is still definitely worth it. It stops a major disease even though it has a chance of causing pain and maybe death. Malaria is by far a bigger problem than blood clots.

Also, sickle cell is really only a problem in cold environments. It [the gene] survives in Africa because Africa is quite warm. Interestingly, there is a slight break from the normal rules of genetic inheritance here insofar as someone with one sickle cell gene and one "ordinary" gene has malaria resistance but no sickle cell disease.

Time to break out the bio books. Sickle cell anemia comes in 2 flavours, homozygous(where BOTH of the HbS beta-Glu changes to Valine due to transcription mutations) and heterozygous where only 1 miscoded protein on the Hb surface. The one that people are referring to as "beneficial" is HETEROZYGOUS sickle cell. It DOES protect against malaria, thats why it still exists in our genepool.Its called balanced polymorphism, BUT only in countries where malaria is rampant mind you.

 

[Keepitclean]

Opposable thumbs are the mutation that is the cornerstone of the human lifestyle. You have to remember that there are a lot of mutations required to produce something like a thumb.

There are plenty of Youtube videos about the evolution of the bacterial flagellum that explain the OP's query very well.

Time to break out the bio books. Sickle cell anemia comes in 2 flavours, homozygous(where BOTH of the HbS beta-Glu changes to Valine due to transcription mutations) and heterozygous where only 1 miscoded protein on the Hb surface. The one that people are referring to as "beneficial" is HETEROZYGOUS sickle cell. It DOES protect against malaria, thats why it still exists in our genepool.Its called balanced polymorphism, BUT only in countries where malaria is rampant mind you.

Here you go OP. This is a simple yet effective explaination of a beneficial mutation. It is beneficial becasue it aids the survival of individual who carry it.

 

[Addendum_Forthcoming]

Sensates like supertasters I guess would be an example. Albeit I don't know whether that's genetic or environmental. People who can pick up on minute tastes and smells that humans without such honed senses couldn't possibly fathom.

I believe it's genetic as its only really evident in women and is particularly evident in those of Asian descent.

But being a supertaster would be cool :x

I would also say empaths. People who feel and register emotions and body language so much better than regular humans. They seem to have a gift for picking up on every little inflection, every little movement, and seem to emotionally connect with the people they talk to on a level most humans wouldn't understand.

I'm loathe to use that example though because it's scientifically debated whether empaths as per the literary stylings of them actually exist or not.

But other genetic variations exists ... like freaks ... I mean, er, people with webbed feet.

Also people who are double jointed ... Thta could be a pretty handy genetic variation ... if being double jointed is indeed genetic.

 

[PurplePlatypus]

I do not believe many mutations are beneficial. Although there may be a family somewhere with unusually strong bones.

 

[Vildleder]

Seeing as this is a pretty intelligent topic, I have a question to ask about Eye colours and genes. Someone mentioned earlier that the gene for Brown eye colour is Dominant (B), while Blue is recessive (b).

Right, my eyes are both blue AND brown. Not one of each colour, but my mainly blue eyes have brown parts, which are visibly brown.

So, escapists, am I a mutant ??